I recently did a political panel on environmental issues at the Glass Packaging Forum AGM. The National representative Maggie Barry got herself into quite a state of excitement regarding Labour and Green Party climate change policies declaring that our difference in opinion over the preferred mechanism for pricing carbon – a trading scheme versus a tax – showed that it would be “impossible” for Labour and the Greens to work together.

I asked her how she felt her Government’s climate change policy would align with Colin Craig’s. I suspect there are a number in her caucus who are privately hoping it does.

The Greens carbon tax announcement did reignite debate on climate change which is most welcome. I have however been bemused by the surprise from some quarters at Labour’s response to it – that we have our own policy in this area and our policy remains the same despite a potential coalition partner taking a different view. The Greens have proposed a credible alternative for pricing carbon but our preference remains, as it has been since we enacted it in 2008, an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Hardly earth-shattering stuff.

The more important point is that Labour and the Greens both want to see action on climate change. We both want to put in place a comprehensive climate strategy in which pricing carbon is but one aspect (albeit a very important one). Differing over which mechanism we would prefer to price carbon does not in any way derail the bigger picture.

Labour’s ETS was working as intended before National began its systematic gutting of the scheme in 2009. It was never given the opportunity to do what it was intended to do as the world’s first all-sectors all-gases trading scheme. Labour believes it can work again.

Labour shares the same concerns as the Greens regarding the exploitation of loopholes in the ETS that have gone completely unchecked by the National Government. As an example I have a member’s bill in the ballot to restrict the flood of cheap international units which have allowed the carbon price to collapse and devastate our carbon forestry sector. I put the same amendment up during the last ETS reform bill and we nearly got it across the line until Peter Dunne decided not to support the restriction. These loopholes are there not because the ETS is fundamentally flawed but because National has allowed them to remain. We would close these loopholes as a matter of priority. And as with any tax there would also be potential loopholes with a carbon tax.

I am the only MP who has sat on every ETS select committee since the original bill in 2008. There was one issue on which advocates and opponents alike spoke with one voice – the need for certainty and stability. There are not many areas in climate change policy where we manage to achieve relatively broad agreement across the political spectrum but pricing carbon via an ETS was one. It is still the preference of the two largest political parties. While I appreciate that in practice the support from National is nothing more than lip service you still don’t throw away bipartisan support lightly.

Labour will, as a priority, begin the transition away from an economy heavily reliant on fossil fuels with ever-increasing gross greenhouse gas emissions to one that is based on clean energy, green technology, and is low-carbon.

We have a window of opportunity in a world seeking low-carbon solutions to leverage our natural strengths by supporting and promoting the renewable energy and low-carbon expertise that exists in New Zealand. Instead we are currently being overtaken by other countries that also see these opportunities and are actively pursuing them.

The National party seems to think that serious climate change policy, or indeed any policy that protects the environment, is some kind of luxury we cannot afford. They could not be more wrong. Transitioning away from our reliance on fossil fuels to a low-carbon future is not a “nice to have”. This is about future-proofing our economy.

Labour does not believe it is fair for future generations to be burdened with the environmental and economic debt of National’s complete inaction on climate change and post-election we look forward to working with like-minded parties who want to see urgent action on climate change and a transition to a clean energy future.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/07/why-labours-red-has-a-deeper-tinge-of-green-on-climate-change/feed/39National burn forestry industry: Where we make jobs in the next Governmenthttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/29/national-burn-forestry-industry-where-we-make-jobs-in-the-next-government/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/29/national-burn-forestry-industry-where-we-make-jobs-in-the-next-government/#commentsWed, 28 May 2014 18:33:30 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=47173

What the hell did the forestry sector ever do to the National Party? I know one thing they did – they ensured that at the end of the first Kyoto commitment period New Zealand was in the black despite ever increasing gross greenhouse gas emissions. It was only the fact that we planted enough trees to offset those emissions that taxpayers didn’t end up with a massive bill given the National Government’s winding back of low-carbon policies, gutting of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and active promotion of carbon intensive industries and practices. The National party should be thanking forestry for digging them out of a hole.

Instead you could be forgiven for thinking that the National Party has some kind of vendetta against the forestry sector.

Since 2011 National has sat on its hands as a flood of cheap international units (“Kyoto units”) – units which are banned or restricted in every other scheme around the world – has collapsed the price of the New Zealand Unit (NZU). The impact on the post-1989 forestry sector has been enormous. Foresters have exited the ETS and replanting has all but dried up. And all this before we even consider the “wall of wood” due to come on-stream in the next few years.

It’s been an issue that the Labour party has raised consistently over the last few years – in the House, in select committee, and through SOPs during the committee stages of the last ETS bill. I also have a members bill in the ballot to restrict these cheap units. This is hardly a new issue.

So when we were presented with an omnibus bill during Budget urgency which included what was described to us as a “non-controversial” change to the Climate Change Response Act we thought at first blush it sounded pretty reasonable. As Minister Craig Foss said in his first reading speech:

Part 2 of this bill corrects an unintended consequence in the operation of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. It stops reregistration arbitrage, which arises from the price difference between international Kyoto units and New Zealand Units. Urgent intervention is required to prevent the significant reputational and integrity risks and fiscal cost to the Crown that this may create.

Basically the change was purported to stop foresters registering their forests with the ETS (and collecting NZUs for the carbon their forest sequesters), de-registering (and surrendering much cheaper Kyoto units to meet the de-forestation liability thereby pocketing the difference), then re-registering and playing the whole game over and over. This re-registration arbitrage was exploiting a loophole and it definitely needed to be fixed.

However that’s not what the Bill actually did. It could have simply stopped a forester from being able to register more than once. Simple. Or the Government could have done what the forestry sector has been calling on them to do since 2011 – restrict these cheap Kyoto units across the board – which would have solved this and many other problems.

Instead what the bill did was stop post-1989 foresters from being able to access Kyoto units to meet their de-registration liability at all. This applies not only to the foresters who were gaming the system by engaging in re-registration arbitrage; it also captures those who are exiting the scheme for genuine reasons with no intention of re-registering. It doesn’t stop re-registration arbitrage; it stops all arbitrage.

And in isolation that seems fair enough. Except that when it comes to National’s mates in the industrial sector, who were awarded a free allocation of NZUs to meet the bulk of their emissions when they entered the scheme, there are no such restrictions. They have been given a free pass to continue to engage in arbitrage without restriction.

The Minister claimed the bill was about reducing fiscal risk to the Crown but when you consider that the fiscal risk associated with post-1989 foresters is estimated to be between $11-66 million compared to $107 million for other holders of NZUs (based on the Government’s own methodology) – you have to ask yourself why this sector was not only the first but is the only sector targeted.

Minister Foss’ comments in the first reading are ridiculous for a number of reasons. Firstly this isn’t an “unintended consequence in the operation of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme”. It is the result of a very deliberate decision made by National to not restrict cheap Kyoto units. And “urgent intervention” was required back in 2011 when the forestry sector first raised this issue with the National Government.

The retrospective nature of the legislation also means that any foresters who were intending to de-register and had purchased Kyoto units to meet their obligations are now stuck with them. They will also have to purchase NZUs to replace them. The Government could have made the restriction apply only to future imported Kyoto units but chose not to.

This change had no consultation, no select committee process, and was dropped on the sector without warning. This is despite the Ministry for Primary Industries routinely promoting the re-registration arbitrage process – including tips on how to de-register and re-register under the ETS – in their Sustainable Forestry Bulletin as early as February this year.

This change does nothing to address the actual problem which is the significant price differential between the NZU and Kyoto units and the unrestricted flow of these cheap units into our ETS.

Labour has consistently supported the forestry sector and iwi in calling for a restriction on these cheap Kyoto units for years. But the restriction must apply to all participants – not only forestry. Anything else is just cronyism. Plain and simple.

This week marks a year since we lost our matua Parekura. I was driving home to Gisborne from Whakatane when I found out he had passed on. I had been told that he wasn’t doing well just before I went out of cellphone range and when I came back into range my phone went nuts with all the texts and voicemail messages and I knew he was gone. I miss him.

I have had cause to think of Parekura a lot in recent weeks. Parekura would have been deeply unimpressed with the East Coast Regional Economic Potential Study released by Ministers Joyce and Brownlee in Gisborne last week. I suspect the word “dastardly” may have been employed more than once.

The study was the Government’s consolation prize to the Gisborne and Hawkes Bay communities after refusing to fix a washout in the Gisborne to Napier rail line leading to the decision in 2012 to mothball the line. The report was meant to be a “deep economic analysis” of the regions potential, challenges, and infrastructure needs. What it turned out to be was a $180,000 whitewash which predictably bags rail and promotes oil and gas exploration as the regions economic saviour. While the study highlighted a number of areas of strength and weakness for the region it doesn’t really tell us anything we didn’t already know.

It is true that our roading network will come under increasing pressure as forestry harvesting rapidly increases up and down the East Coast, (and deeply worrying that this blindingly obvious fact seems to have come as a great surprise to our transport Minister), but the study focuses solely on the state highways and not the regional roads which will also need attention. But instead of supporting regional roading networks, the Government has starved regions of funding for the maintenance and the building of regional and rural roads.

The study acknowledges that there is potential for rail but predictably takes a very narrow view in the extremely brief analysis of that potential stating that rail freight volumes were low when the line was operational and therefore that proves the line is not viable. However when you put some context around that you get quite a different picture.

For example the study doesn’t mention the challenges we faced in getting businesses to have the confidence to sign up to a rail line that was actively under review by an anti-rail government. It doesn’t mention the shortage of rolling stock made available by KiwiRail – in fact a report to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council transport committee at the end of 2011 highlighted that it was a lack of rolling stock, not a lack of demand, that was stopping even more freight going by rail. The study also fails to acknowledge that when KiwiRail invested in the line, just months before the washout, by lowering the tracks through some of the tunnels to accommodate the new 40′ high cube containers demand for the line took off and the line was very well used for the 2012 produce season.

All this is before we even factor in the environmental, public health and safety benefits of rail. The study also highlights international tourism as an area of potential for the district and yet we know that one of our most popular tourism ventures was the restored steam train Wa165 which is no longer operational following the mothballing of the line.

The study highlights a number of industries that could potentially create job growth but typically Minister Steven Joyce zeroed in on oil and gas exploration. Putting aside the very real environmental concerns it is worrying that the Government continues to put all their economic development eggs in this one basket. While Minister Joyce is correct in saying that a significant discovery could indeed lead to jobs and economic growth, it is far more likely that there won’t be any such discovery. At the very least, regardless of whether or not the Government continues to aggressively pursue oil and gas exploration, we deserve a plan B.

But my favourite part of the study is the genius assessment that some parts of the East Coast have a problem with being “ . . . perceived by some as ‘socio-economically deprived’ . .” Actually, large parts of the East Coast ARE socio-economically deprived. We don’t have a perception problem — we have a poverty problem. That’s why regional economic development is so crucial.

What is really missing in this story though is a plan from Government laying out how they intend to assist our region to achieve our full economic potential. It’s not good enough to simply drop a report at our feet and do little more than point to existing programmes – given they clearly haven’t had the intended impact thus far.

We don’t need a $180,000 government study to tell us we need to up-skill our workforce, retain talent, create jobs and develop new industries. What we need is a clear plan from central government laying out how they are going to pro-actively assist our region to achieve these goals.

I’m going to be honest with you. For five long years I have been waiting to hear three simple words from our Prime Minister. Three simple words which would mean so much. Three words which would show he truly cared.

Regional economic development.

This phrase seems to have been surprisingly absent from the Government lexicon since National’s election in 2008. Also gone is the Minister for Regional Development – a role created by the last Labour Government which was much appreciated up and down provincial New Zealand regardless of political stripe.

Regional economic development is crucial to our success as a country. We are hugely reliant on export commodity products produced in the regions of New Zealand. And while food production will remain a major contributor to our economy, it is crucial that we take regional economic development seriously, and diversify by supporting other industries such as tourism, manufacturing, and forestry.

We need economic and environmentally sustainable jobs in provincial New Zealand that provide a range of employment opportunities across all skill levels. Jobs that attract young families to fill our local schools; opportunities that ensure decent household incomes to sustain our shops, restaurants, cafes, sport and entertainment facilities; adequate employment opportunities to stabilise regional populations and guarantee on-going provision of local health and social services. In provincial New Zealand many of these amenities, which are a given in our large cities, feel increasingly precarious.

This means attracting industry to New Zealand regions that need it most.

But when it comes to National’s economic development agenda, with the exception of Christchurch, it really does feel like this Government thinks New Zealand ends at the Bombay Hills.

There are so many opportunities for growth, investment and innovation in our regions, and increasing frustration at the current Government’s refusal to engage. So far their only plan for regional New Zealand has been accelerating oil and gas exploration. As well as the genuine environmental concerns it is high risk for the Government to place all their economic eggs in this one basket. In the provinces we think we deserve a plan B.

That’s why I was so pleased to hear David Cunliffe announce last week that the regions will play a major role in Labour’s planned economic upgrade.

“It is time that central government stopped treating regional and local government (and their economic development agencies) as second class citizens.

Sustainable economic development means jointly developing one vision, one strategy and one engagement structure for each region.

That means simplifying the governance structures and no wrong door for businesses and communities wanting to engage in building a better future.

It means enhanced coordination and prioritisation of Crown investments, with a focus on transformative projects executed within a strong strategic framework.”

One of the bottlenecks in regional economies is the ability to fund core infrastructure projects which are often at the heart of the “transformative projects” David mentions above.

One such example is the Opotiki Aquaculture project.

From being a bustling, economically vibrant settlement in the 1880s through to the 1960s, Opotiki now has the highest level of deprivation on the New Zealand Deprivation Index, a high level of benefit dependency and a high proportion of unemployed and residents of working age not in the workforce.

So the local Mayor and council, in partnership with iwi, decided to do something about it. and together developed the Opotiki aquaculture and harbour development plan to create a platform for sustainable economic growth in the District by creating new jobs (2011 research estimated more than 440 full-time jobs), adding more than $34 million a year to the District’s economy, and substantially increasing average household incomes.

Over ten years they have systematically developed their business case. The one thing holding them back is the cost of redeveloping the Opotiki Harbour entrance.

The new marine farm’s servicing and processing activities are planned for Ōpōtiki. However, this will only work if vessels have reliable access to the Harbour which is currently restricted to smaller vessels under favourable weather and tidal conditions. The proposed harbour project will create a harbour entrance that will be navigable almost every day of the year and already the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has chipped in funding of $18million over two years to assist the development.

However they need a similar sized contribution from Central Government for the project to go ahead. Given the savings to Central Government in income and housing support, as well as the broader benefits of higher incomes and the positive social impact of secure employment, this project is a potential game changer for Opotiki and as such is worthy of consideration for Central Government support.

A Labour Government will take regional economic development seriously and consider supporting such transformative projects.

“There is no set template for regional growth. But disengagement achieves nothing. We must work together and ensure all our industries are humming.”

That’s all the provinces are asking for – a Government not afraid to say those three little words, which are so critical to our future well-being, and mean them.

In 2006 the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released a report on the potential of distributed renewable generation along the lines of that being proposed by the Greens with their Solar homes initiative. She stated “Our culture of relying on large-unit supply-side energy solutions is deeply ingrained.” The report went on to say that under our existing electricity system consumers have little control over where their energy is produced and the price they pay for it. And more recently the sheer price of electricity, despite flat demand and a surplus of generation, has seen disconnections skyrocket as families struggle to afford the bills.

That’s why the announcement is timely as the National Government continues to bury its head in the sand over power prices, climate change, and the future of energy in New Zealand.

While there is obviously more detail that needs to come regarding the Solar Homes policy, Labour also supports a more strategic rollout of distributed generation including solar PV. There are a few points that jumped out at me when I read the policy that I think are worthy of further discussion.

Firstly it is absolutely correct that the biggest barrier in terms of solar PV, and many renewable technologies, is the upfront cost of paying for the kit and installation. This is not a new problem and it makes sense to leverage the expertise and initiatives that already exist so we don’t end up reinventing the wheel or inadvertently undermining schemes like Vector’s SunGenie solar initiative. Under SunGenie households pay a fixed monthly cost (guaranteed to never go up over the life of the 12 year contract), and Vector owns and maintains the system which includes battery storage. The upfront costs of installation are also greatly reduced to $2000-$4000 depending on the size of the installation. As a first step it would seem sensible that any proposed Government loan system be used to help consumers access this product, and any others like it that may exist or be developed.

It also makes sense to have the lines companies manage any such roll out, or at least play a very active role. The 30,000 rollouts over three years will need to be carefully managed to reduce the overall impact on the local network. There are also health and safety implications if lines companies are not made aware of where electricity might be being exported back to the national grid.

Lines companies have the expertise to monitor the performance of the installation over the life of the panels and carry out any required maintenance or repairs to ensure maximum efficiency. They will also know which homes may not be appropriate for solar PV due to the direction, size and pitch of the roof or due to shading by trees or other buildings. It will also allow lines companies to have something (with the exception of one lines company) they don’t currently have – a direct commercial relationship with their customers. A relationship not dictated by and mediated through electricity retailers.

In order to facilitate this Labour would prioritise the implementation of the changes we made to Part Four of the Commerce Act in our last year of Government to ensure that energy efficiency and demand side solutions are able to be actively pursued by lines companies and remove the regulatory uncertainty that is holding some back.

The second area for further consideration is the effectiveness of fixed tariffs in the New Zealand context as I am yet to be convinced they are needed. The strongest argument for a fixed tariff is that it would provide a guaranteed income stream that would make it easier for households to secure a loan to pay for the upfront costs of installation but obviously in the context of the Greens policy and their proposed loans scheme this would not be needed. And as I mentioned earlier, there are already products available that greatly reduce the prohibitive upfront costs which could be built on.

And thirdly rather than simply focussing on distributed generation in isolation we need to talk more broadly about “Local Energy Solutions.”

This is much broader than simply how and where we generate our electricity. It includes for example energy efficiency measures. Whilst the public generally respond well to energy efficiency initiatives, all the research shows that where distributed generation is part of the package, the understanding and appreciation of the value of that resource is far greater and consumers are likely to take far more control of their energy choices.

Local energy solutions have enormous potential benefits. Generating electricity at or close to the point of use reduces losses associated with transmission – especially at peak times when losses are at their highest due to the system being near its maximum capacity. Energy resilience is enhanced by having a diverse range of generating units across the network, and if local energy solutions can help reduce peak demand then this strengthens the whole network at the time it is under the most stress and is most vulnerable to failure.

And while the primary motivation behind our NZ Power policy was to address ever increasing power prices, the lack of competition in the retail electricity market, and to stop the value of our plentiful public water resource being captured (and privatised) by the gentailers under the long run marginal cost model, NZ Power would also for the first time give demand side and local energy solutions a serious footing up against supply side solutions for meeting increased energy demand.

Local energy solutions are low hanging fruit, in terms of our climate change response and reducing the costs and environmental impact of electricity generation, and solar PV will increasingly play an important role as costs continue to come down and battery storage technology improves.

What’s clear is that a change of Government is required before we will see any leadership on renewable energy and the transition that we must make to a low carbon economy.

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) board of inquiry hearings into the controversial Hawkes Bay Ruataniwha dam proposal (aka the Tukituki catchment scheme) took an interesting turn late last week with board chairman Justice Chisholm raising the possibility that the decision on the project could be delayed due to concerns that the schemes promoter, the Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC), had not adequately consulted with local iwi. This was a glimmer of hope for those who have opposed the scheme and the process followed by the HBRC thus far.

Justice Chisholm’s comments are important because the Ruataniwha dam is not the only thing being tested here. The entire board of inquiry process, where projects deemed to be ‘nationally significant’ are called in by the Government and put through this new nine month fast-track process, is also under scrutiny.

This process is currently being tested in the Supreme Court as the first EPA board of inquiry decision, which last February allowed Malaysian company NZ King Salmon to build four new salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds in scenic and recreational areas where aquaculture is currently prohibited, is challenged.

In the case of Ruataniwha the HBRC proposal is to build a dam and create a 7km-long reservoir lake on the Makaroro River as part of a planned $265 million irrigation scheme for the nearby Ruataniwha Plains.The board of inquiry is considering two components related to the scheme. The first relates to the creation and operation of the dam structure, storage reservoir and canal system. The second relates to the HBRC’s Plan Change 6, which proposes new policies for implementing a nutrient management framework and water allocation regime.

It is the second component that has drawn the most criticism and concern. Under the proposed changes the HBRC is proposing a “single nutrient management approach” where water quality limits and targets are based on measuring phosphorus levels only.

Opponents of the scheme point out that a “dual nutrient” approach, controlling levels of nitrogen as well as phosphorus, is crucial for the health of the river catchment. The Environmental Defence Society presented compelling expert evidence showing that a single nutrient management approach would not effectively reduce nuisance periphyton (the slime and algae found on the beds of streams and rivers).

Unfortunately government departments, such as the Department of Conservation, who would normally evaluate and submit on such a proposal “chose” not to do so in the case of Ruataniwha. This meant that the burden fell to NGOs, iwi, local businesses and individuals to do this work. The questions around whether or not Conservation Minister Nick Smith muzzled his department and vetoed their opposition to the scheme made it all the more crucial that the board of inquiry process be completely above board and not just a rubber stamping exercise.

Labour has been concerned about the role of the EPA since it was established in 2011. During the committee stages in Parliament Labour proposed an amendment to its legislation that would have made “environmental protection” one of the roles and purposes of the “Environmental Protection Authority” and the Government voted it down. That speaks volumes.

There is much at stake here for the Government, the EPA, and the board of inquiry system. In the case of Ruataniwha inadequate consultation with iwi is but one of a large number of concerns about the genuine nature of consultation and the fairness of the process.

If the board of inquiry wanted to delay the decision, by requesting an extension to the nine month statutory timeframe, it would require the approval of Government to do so because the board is operating under legislation requiring it to work to the nine-month deadline which runs until early April. Ministers Adams and Smith would be wise to accept such a request.

]]>Homelessness this Christmashttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/24/homelessness-this-christmas/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/24/homelessness-this-christmas/#commentsMon, 23 Dec 2013 20:15:15 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=38353I’ve just finished nearly two weeks doing the EU visitors programme based around climate change, environment and energy policy. I’ll blog more about that in the New Year once I’ve had time to go through all the material but needless to say it was a fascinating visit and New Zealand is certainly on Europe’s radar, which represents both opportunities and risks.

I’ve been to Brussels once before about seven years ago. What struck me on this visit is the dramatic extent to which homelessness has visibly increased – perhaps not surprising given the difficult financial times. As we all head off to spend Christmas with friends and family it’s important we don’t forget those who are struggling, who aren’t able to provide the basics let alone gifts for the kids, and the wonderful people who work through the holiday period to support them and make what can be a very difficult time a little bit easier.

Homelessness is also an increasing problem in New Zealand. It is estimated that one in 20 New Zealanders is sleeping in temporary accommodation, on a relative or friend’s couch or lounge floor, in a garage or car, or in some other ‘unfit’ accommodation. A quarter of these are children. And yet at the same time homelessness remains one of our most misunderstood issues.

Despite efforts to raise awareness by the New Zealand Coalition to End Homelessness and those who work at the coal face running shelters, supported accommodation and social services, the prevailing view still seems to be that homelessness is largely a choice, and that in a country with a comprehensive social security and state housing system no one should be homeless. And on one level I can understand that thinking. But it’s not that simple.

To access income support in New Zealand you need a physical address and a bank account. To get a bank account you need a physical address. To vote you need a physical address. Labour has always understood that a house is so much more than just a roof over the head. So much of our ability to participate in and engage with society is reliant on the assumption that in Godzone every Kiwi will be adequately housed. When we fall short of this goal the social implications can be immense. And social housing is hugely over-subscribed so if you are a single male your chances of accessing a Housing New Zealand property are very low.

It’s easy to dismiss homeless people – especially the visibly homeless on the streets – as a public nuisance, visual eyesore, or having chosen their own circumstances. The video below is American but accurately echoes the comments of Kiwis who are current or formerly homeless that I have met through amazing groups like Lifewise in Auckland. It’s well worth a watch.

There are a few relatively simple things government could do right now- for a start they could stick to their own definition of homelessness and ensure that no government policy has the effect of increasing homelessness. There is also no single agency responsible for dealing with homelessness or emergency accommodation – a major issue given that there is very little if any emergency provision outside of the main centres. They could return Housing New Zealand to it’s rightful role as a social housing provider (reversing the decision to stop our social housing provider considering a tenants “wider social needs”), and they could free up the thousands of state houses that are sitting vacant for tenanting.

Labour is committed to working with the New Zealand Coalition to End Homelessness, and across Parliament, to achieve the goals of housing every Kiwi by 2020 and ending homelessness in New Zealand.

A very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year to all.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/24/homelessness-this-christmas/feed/10Ok, let’s make offshore oil and gas exploration about the science and not emotionhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/20/ok-lets-make-offshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-about-the-science-and-not-emotion/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/20/ok-lets-make-offshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-about-the-science-and-not-emotion/#commentsTue, 19 Nov 2013 20:02:07 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=36348

One of the things that has struck me during the whole debate around offshore oil and gas exploration is the number of times National Ministers and MPs have claimed that they are making decisions based on “science” and not “emotion”. Putting aside the obvious fact that science and emotion are not mutually exclusive, a critical point the National Party fails to understand is that a true commitment to evidence based policy making means not being scared to have a robust public debate.

Environment Minister Amy Adams during questioning in Parliament over plans to exclude the public from having their say on deep sea oil drilling permits in the wake of a Greenpeace report on the potential consequences of an oil spill constantly referred to “the science” and “scientific evidence” and yet I doubt she had even read the report.

Greenpeace produced a scientific analysis and industry responded in kind. Following the release of the Greenpeace report the EPA released modelling carried out by Shell that was previously not publically available and the public could judge for themselves whether or not the Government’s shrill accusations of scaremongering were justified. That is exactly how these debates should take place – transparently and with the relevant information in the public domain.

Instead what we got was a knee jerk reaction from Government Ministers who dismissed the report out of hand. Evidence based policy making doesn’t mean ignoring any research that challenges your point of view. What we have under this National government is policy-based evidence making.
The National Government are happy to pay lip service to science but when it comes down to it they are only interested in science that progresses their agenda.

We see it time and time again – Nitrate levels in the Ruataniwha dam proposal, the reversal of mandatory fortification of folate, complete inaction on climate change.

The Greenpeace report stimulated an important public debate – one which industry has not been afraid to engage in robustly. And yet at the same time the Government is intent on shutting down debate, excluding the public from the permitting process, banning protesting at sea, and equivocating on how much information regarding spill modelling and emergency response plans will be released publicly.

That kind of attitude engenders distrust and helps no one. The Government must ensure the public have confidence in the regulatory processes and minimum requirements and standards they put in place.

Science can only inform the debate. It doesn’t take sides and at the end of the day it’s the Government that sets environmental bottom lines and determines what level of risk to our environment is justified when weighed against any potential benefits. And science makes no moral or ethical judgements. Science will never tell us whether or not we should drill for oil in deep sea conditions but it is the foundation on which to begin that very important public discussion – a discussion the National Government must not shy away from given their desire to accelerate exploratory drilling in our deep sea marine environment.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/20/ok-lets-make-offshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-about-the-science-and-not-emotion/feed/24Green on the outside, red in the middlehttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/06/green-on-the-outside-red-in-the-middle/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/06/green-on-the-outside-red-in-the-middle/#commentsWed, 06 Nov 2013 03:54:22 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=35566
I’ve always been passionate about environmental issues. Access to clean water, clean air, safe food and protection from pollutants is as much about social justice as it is environmental and economic sustainability. Our environment and our economy are two sides of the same coin. And as such I am extremely proud of the work being done within the Labour Party both on the recently adopted environment policy platform and the policy development work that platform will guide.

As David Cunliffe said in his conference speech we need to transition away from our reliance on fossil fuels to a low-carbon renewable energy future and the accompanying jobs. It’s a transition that started under Helen Clark’s leadership through such policies as the Emissions Trading Scheme and a price on carbon, a moratorium on any new base load electricity generation from fossil fuels, and a biofuels obligation. Policies that have all been decimated or canned by the current National government. It’s a transition the next Labour government will lead on again.

The missing element of the current debate around offshore oil and gas exploration is the fact that we seriously lack any alternatives. We are a heavily carbon dependent economy. Fossil fuel extraction is a significant part of our economy and we couldn’t simply turn the tap off tomorrow and continue to enjoy the quality of life we enjoy today. That’s why the immediate focus must be on developing the alternatives and beginning that transition right now. Otherwise we’ll be having the same debates in twenty, thirty, forty years time.

And in the meantime we need to learn from the Rena and Gulf of Mexico disasters and implement tougher bottom lines for any new activities. For example we need to ensure we have top notch robust regulation and risk assessment analysis. To say the Exclusive Economic Zone Act falls well short is a massive understatement – it is a developers charter. We also have concerns about the agency doing the consenting – the Environmental Protection Authority. When the EPA legislation was going through Parliament Labour proposed an amendment to make ‘environmental protection’ one of the purposes of the ‘Environmental Protection Authority’ and National voted it down. That speaks volumes.

Labour is committed to a low carbon future. While there is of course debate within our party about the speed and nature of that transition, the goal is not in question. And the debates we are having as a party are the same debates being had out there in communities right around the country who want to see opportunities for workers here at home rather than overseas, but not at the expense of our natural environment. Rather than blackmailing these communities by telling them it’s oil and gas jobs or no jobs at all, maybe the National party should reflect on why as a party they aren’t also having these debates given that sustainable regional development and climate change are two of the most pressing issues facing our country and our planet.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/06/green-on-the-outside-red-in-the-middle/feed/19About Moana Mackeyhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/06/about-moana-mackey/
Tue, 05 Nov 2013 20:32:31 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=35588About Moana Mackey – Moana is a Labour Party Member of Parliament and her party’s spokesperson for the Environment, Climate Change, Science, and Associate health spokesperson with responsibility for environmental health and health research.

Moana lives in Gisborne where she grew up and is of Ngati Porou descent.

Moana graduated from Victoria University with a first class honours degree in biochemistry and molecular biology and is a unashamed science geek.

Prior to entering Parliament Moana was team leader of an environmental laboratory specialising in persistent organic pollutants, in particular dioxins and PCBs.